D&D General What is player agency to you?

[EzekielRaiden]

So, I can say after doing a lot of reading, that my answer to the original question ("What is player agency to you?") is this: For my games, either player agency just is character agency, or it doesn't matter at all/is not something I'm even slightly interested in.

Plots aren't driven by protagonists - protagonists react to the plot/what is happening to them. So, you are correct, the player who is outside of the game has virtually no agency, but their character does have agency, which is what matters to me. Which is why I am a simulationist, not a narrativist.

My games are like real life in that things are happening to you, and you must react to those things. You cannot step outside of 'the world' and direct them.

What this thread has taught me is that not only do I not want to run a narrativist game, but I also don't even want to play in one, because only character agency is important to me. I exercise my player agency by deciding if I'll even play in someone's game at all.

Well, that's good in that you have learned something about yourself, which is always a good thing.

But I think this also perfectly encapsulates one of the central tensions of the thread.

That is, people have repeatedly said that there is no difference in agency between, as you put it, "character agency" games and "player agency" games. But then they pivoted to your current position here, that there is still some agency, it is just of a different sort.

Thing is, that pivot is admitting the original statement.

Player agency games do not lose character agency in the process. Full character agency is still on display, and may, in some cases, even be heightened by the presence of player agency. Games that only feature character agency intentionally do not include player agency.

Hence...exclusively character agency games have less agency in aggregate. That doesn't mean they have none (though they may, e.g. railroads and illusionism, my-way-or-the-highway GMing). But it is simply true that there is less agency involved.

If that point has (finally) been conceded, I think there may not be much else to talk about. Nobody (I hope) wants to yuck anyone's yum. If you prefer games that assiduously avoid player agency, awesome, more power to you, though you probably won't see me at any of your tables and vice-versa.

 

[pemerton]

Your way of playing 4e is not really representative of D&D in general, to be fair. In fact, I'm not sure D&D can be fairly talked about in general regarding this topic.

Perhaps.

But I have talked about D&D play - 4e D&D, AD&D as I GMed it in the latter part of the 80s, AD&D as I played it in the 90s, dungeon crawling D&D which I GM very occasionally and without much skill. @hawkeyefan has talked about various approaches to 5e D&D play that he has experienced as a player and GM.

The repeated assertions from @FrogReaver and @Oofta that there is one particular way that D&D is played is frustrating, because it makes it very hard to talk about the actual range of approaches that some of us posting in this thread have encountered.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Actually, I tell a lie. I first encountered the term "player agency" in online discussions whenever somebody was bitching about the referee saying "no" and using the Holy banner of "player agency" to declare the eternal perfidity of the referee.

Ah yes, because referees are such poor, beleaguered souls. They only claim absolute power and the ability to do whatever they want, whenever they want, for as long as they want. Who will defend them from the slings and arrows of outrageous players? Who will deflect the insubordinate, ungrateful, churlish words of these petulant peasants and their unrelenting demands?!

Seriously. The "referee," "GM," whatever we call it. They are the ones claiming power.

With great power comes great responsibility. If you can't handle that part of that responsibility means having people question your decisions, having people expect you to account for their interests, then go write a novel. Then the only person you have to wrangle is your editor.

 

[Guest 7042500]

Ah yes, because referees are such poor, beleaguered souls. They only claim absolute power and the ability to do whatever they want, whenever they want, for as long as they want. Who will defend them from the slings and arrows of outrageous players? Who will deflect the insubordinate, ungrateful, churlish words of these petulant peasants and their unrelenting demands?!

Seriously. The "referee," "GM," whatever we call it. They are the ones claiming power.

With great power comes great responsibility. If you can't handle that part of that responsibility means having people question your decisions, having people expect you to account for their interests, then go write a novel. Then the only person you have to wrangle is your editor.

Show us on the doll where the DM touched your character in a bad way.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Show us on the doll where the DM touched your character in a bad way.

They didn't.

I am a forever GM. Or close enough, anyway.

Doesn't mean I won't call out these sorts of comments when I see them.

 

[Oofta]

Well, that's good in that you have learned something about yourself, which is always a good thing.

But I think this also perfectly encapsulates one of the central tensions of the thread.

That is, people have repeatedly said that there is no difference in agency between, as you put it, "character agency" games and "player agency" games. But then they pivoted to your current position here, that there is still some agency, it is just of a different sort.

Thing is, that pivot is admitting the original statement.

Player agency games do not lose character agency in the process. Full character agency is still on display, and may, in some cases, even be heightened by the presence of player agency. Games that only feature character agency intentionally do not include player agency.

Hence...exclusively character agency games have less agency in aggregate. That doesn't mean they have none (though they may, e.g. railroads and illusionism, my-way-or-the-highway GMing). But it is simply true that there is less agency involved.

If that point has (finally) been conceded, I think there may not be much else to talk about. Nobody (I hope) wants to yuck anyone's yum. If you prefer games that assiduously avoid player agency, awesome, more power to you, though you probably won't see me at any of your tables and vice-versa.

Your conclusion is false. Different options don't necessarily increase agency. People in narrative games can't just declare whatever they want, they are still limited. The limits are just different.

But go ahead claim victory for all I care.

 

[occam]

Actually, I tell a lie. I first encountered the term "player agency" in online discussions whenever somebody was bitching about the referee saying "no" and using the Holy banner of "player agency" to declare the eternal perfidity of the referee.

Ah yes, because referees are such poor, beleaguered souls. They only claim absolute power and the ability to do whatever they want, whenever they want, for as long as they want. Who will defend them from the slings and arrows of outrageous players? Who will deflect the insubordinate, ungrateful, churlish words of these petulant peasants and their unrelenting demands?!

Seriously. The "referee," "GM," whatever we call it. They are the ones claiming power.

With great power comes great responsibility. If you can't handle that part of that responsibility means having people question your decisions, having people expect you to account for their interests, then go write a novel. Then the only person you have to wrangle is your editor.

You realize you just emphasized Gronan's point... right?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

How about ‘agency in respect of establishing the shared fiction while respecting a DM curated world in the course of playing a RPG’?

Because that seems like a very contrived sort of niche discussion that is only relevant within a very narrow range of play, and I think that anything we would say about that would probably apply generally in a much broader sense. I mean, if there are key concepts that can only apply in that specific case, then discussion of them might certainly have value for some people. I probably wouldn't have much to say there as its not super interesting to me.

So basically I've tried to stick to broader themes.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

All the definitions you cite appear to be binaries. You either produced an action or intervention or not. You either had the capacity or not. You either had the condition or not. You either had the state or not.

Where is your idea of scalar agency found in these definitions?

Also since it was brought up - what I’m saying is that since the word agency is soo contentious, if we want to have a discussion over more than it’s meaning then we should drop the word and talk the concepts without it. I don’t know why anyone would object to that?

It isn't that agency is NECESSARILY scalar in each instance, though I will not commit to denying that possibility, but that IN THE OVERALL PLAY OF A GAME it is something that we can discern a degree of exercise of.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Your conclusion is false. Different options don't necessarily increase agency. People in narrative games can't just declare whatever they want, they are still limited. The limits are just different.

But go ahead claim victory for all I care.

In this case, they absolutely do.

Thing 1 intentionally only offers A-type features. It offers as many of them as it can, but it only offers those. It intentionally excludes all B-type features; they are simply not available, no matter what.

Thing 2 offers both A-type and B-type features. It offers no fewer A-type features than Thing 1 does. It also offers B-type features. In some cases, these things may combinatorially interact, but at rock bottom, no A-type features are excluded.

In what way can you possibly argue that Thing 1 could offer more features?

We have already recognized and dealt with the "not all choices are agency!" retort. Yes--they need to be distinct, meaningful choices. An infinitude of indistinguishable choices do not add agency, but we are not talking about an infinitude of indistinguishable choices. An infinitude of meaningless choices do not add agency, but we are not talking about an infinitude of meaningless choices. We are talking about the very clear, overt inclusion of a new arena for agency to play out in. How can adding something that is clearly meaningful (since, as @Raiztt has clearly shown, it matters to many players whether those options are in or out!) and something that is clearly distinct (since they clearly see a difference between player-agency and character-agency, and most folks here clearly agree!) in any way fail to provide more agency?

And you are correct. People in narrative games can't just declare whatever they want. The only people who have said otherwise are those criticizing the very existence of narrative games, or claiming that there is absolutely no difference in agency between those games and "trad" games or whatever else. The limits are different--and they are wider. Because player agency =/= character agency--a thing Raiztt values very highly, due to not wanting player agency, not even a whisper of it--and some games include the former without any reduction to the latter.

You realize you just emphasized Gronan's point... right?

It is difficult to realize something incorrect, so no, I don't "realize" that.

Gronan's point is that GMs suffer under a terrible burden of players being mean to them, which is ridiculous. GMs, purely by being GMs, are in a self-appointed position of power, authority over others. That power comes with responsibilities. Among them, dealing with the interests of those whom they claim to have power over. If one cannot accept that responsibility, one should not be laying claim to that authority in the first place.

This has nothing to do with me accusing Gronan, or anyone else, of any kind of misbehavior. It is me calling out the idea that the powerful need to be shielded from the criticism of those over whom they claim power.